Below are candidate profiles and interviews of former candidates for the December 2007 Arbitration Committee elections. All users on this page have withdrawn from the elections; their responses have been archived here for reference.
This list does not include candidates who withdrew before the candidate guide was first published, in the November 26th issue.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | May 1, 2007 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | None |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I have a recent ArbCom ruling about me. The case in itself gave me an introspect on what ArbCom tries do be and where it fails. At this moment, the process(not the people) of ArbCom is faulty and conflicting with Wikipedia ideology in many ways. One of those is the concept of prevention over punishment. It is not prevention when you slap everybody around and simply ignore the root issues that make problems like this come to ArbCom again and again. People who end up at ArbCom are all dedicated editors, but they need to be told what is acceptable and what is not, not blocked or restricted for long periods. A month block or an actual enforcement of WP:CIVIL policy at the right time can save a lot of trouble for everybody later without actually driving anybody away. Another part of it is passing judgment and showing involvement on ANY issue raised. My case showed that inconvenient issues were simply ignored, motions looked over without a single comment etc. People who end up at ArbCom need somebody to judge and to pass judgment with authority. I wish to bring that change. Thank you.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
None. I'm one of the commoners at Wikipedia.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
Ive been party to one case. The case made it pretty clear where ArbCom fails. I want to fix it.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Because I want to fix things. I want to take to ArbCom my skill to ask "WHY?" at the right place, to find remedies that actually serve the community as a whole, to be a catalyst for permanent change and preferring problem prevention over constant cleanup.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
There are neither. All cases i have looked into solve the problems at hand, but fail to do anything to solve the underlying issues.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
If they like the way things are, they should not. If they want an ArbCom that passes judgment on all non-content issues raised, that actually asks why instead of allowing ArbCom sessions to unravel like mud wars and then beat everybody for getting dirty then they should vote for me. I will always try to ask why things got to ArbCom and pass judgment based on that.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | February 18, 2002 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship: July 2002 - December 2003 January 2004 - March 2007 since April 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None at this time |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I have decided to run for ArbCom. The reason is simple: I see so many people complaining about ArbCom and how long it takes to resolve problems, but they themselves are imitating those very problems with their candidacies. We now have 27 candidates with more on the way. Each is asked at least 27 questions, which they often answer in several paragraphs of vapid prolix. In other words, in order to make an educated decision as to whom to vote for, the Wikipedia community is left with reading some 1000 paragraphs of platitudes, or playing the prom king/queen game and selecting the wiki-superstar du jour. In my tradition, wasting someone's time is worse than stealing their money, because time can never be returned.
The goal of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopedia. The purpose of rules is to keep that goal on track. With a touch of common sense, and a willingness to be decisive, that can be achieved. I believe I can do that.
This is my statement. In keeping with the principles mentioned above, I will not be answering any further questions.
Editor's note: Danny declined to answer our questions, saying, "Everything about my candidacy for Arb Com is in my statement."
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | February 22, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since March 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I wish to run for Arbitration Committee. I wish to run on my own merits and not answer questions or bother anyone with an extended candidate statement. Thank you, and best of luck to all of those running.
^demon chose not to respond to questions, and has since withdrawn.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | LordHarris |
| First edit date: | November 3, 2004 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | None |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello, my name is Harry Harris. I’m running to be a member of ArbCom because I want to resolve problems and I know I’ll give each case all my energy, effort and above all deliberation. I take great pride in resolving arguments, in finding answers and in reaching a compromise, both in my personal life and on the encyclopedia.
The great thing about wikipedia is that everyone has a chance to contribute. The sad thing is that we occasionally disagree. As a last resort, the Arbitration committee considers the disagreement and issues a decision after considering all the arguments. I would strive to ensure this is done. I would endeavor to ensure that the wikipedia is protected and that those who rule break are dealt with. But in doing so I would maintain impartiality and I would ensure that the policies and aspirations of the project and its users are considered. I welcome the challenges that ArbCom offers. I also welcome any questions you might have.
LordHarris did not respond to questions before withdrawing his nomination.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | Navou |
| First edit date: | May 9, 2006 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since September 2007 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | OTRS representative |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello. I have been a English Wikipedia contributer for a bit now. I'm also a sysop on the English Wikipedia, and I volunteer in the Wikimedia OTRS queue answering emails. I thank you for reading my candidacy statement.
I've been watching the workings of arbitration. I believe it is important in our community to have this process, and I do respect the work the arbitrators do. I don't really desire to change the dispute resolution process, or the arbitration process. I desire to arbitrate. Should I be chosen for the role, I will do it to the best of my ability.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
First and always, I'm an editor. I also do some janitorial work for the project. I indirectly help by answering emails sent to the wikipedia/wikimedia email addresses via the OTRS system.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
No real involvement. I have produced evidence in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson after a failed mediation. I'm a party to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Privatemusings currently.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I've done some dispute resolution, and I have what it takes to arbitrate. I'm on every day, and I know I would like the work.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I won't question the arbiters. They do hard work, and since I'm on the outside looking in, I don't have all the information.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I know the system, I have the aptitude, and I'm available.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | February 15, 2007 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | None |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Why someone who is a non-administrator? I'll tell you why.
The major issue is backlog. Why are these cases being backlogged? Some may say invariably that it is due to a small amount of members on the Committee, but I say it is more complicated than that. Many editors on here have overextended themselves by being involved in so many different things that arbitration is but one part of their responsiblity, and that is a bad thing. To arbitrate effectively, you must be committed to this work and be free to do the job right. This is what I bring to the table here- clearing the backlogs and getting things done properly with efficiency and competency.
You have to be a diplomat. Diplomacy requires the ability to bring cold, precise facts to the arbitration while being human at the same time. How many times have you brought something to talk only to be given a succinct statement or a brushoff? This is unacceptable- we are all people, and the human touch with reason is crucial. I have that capability to provide the essential balance required.
Because I care, not because of prestige. I actually care about what goes on in Wikipedia and am not looking for an overall "powers that be" mega-Wikipedian status. Too often times the power of the position is the primary goal of people because they feel they can further themselves. By choosing me for this committee, you get an editor that has the best interest of the site at heart- knowledge. If I don't know something, I admit it and I research.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I'm a Wikipedia editor only, with plenty of time for this responsibility. Without high-quality articles and people to help good editors get their job done, Wikipedia would not and could not exist successfully!
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
No, because every problem I have ever had in an article has been worked out by RfC or lower-level discussions. I'm not prone to go higher up unless I really, really have to. I have observed many cases in which editors I know are involved, and that is how I came to the decision regarding running for ArbCom- dedicated quality people are sorely needed.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I am running because I feel quality people who are readily available to examine cases in a diplomatic, unbiased manner are needed. We need to have people working on ArbCom who look beyond just the simple, but get into the complex details and come to a decision that will make Wikipedia a great place to interact. We should never allow people to abuse others to the point where it goes on for far too long or they go unpunished, scaring off others who make great contributions.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
On the positive, Sadi Carnot was handled decisively and very well on all counts. The type of activity that got the user banned for one year most certainly fit the punishment. I just wish this could happen more so that it doesn't get to the point where good editors go mad.
I have commented on a case in which I thought was handled poorly, and that was Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2. For my first question this election, I was asked about a case in which I thought the case was not done correctly and I gave this answer: "I have never been a big proponent of supervisory judgments, for I find them to be ineffective. Outright bans for a specific period are the most effective way to put people on notice for their actions- it is much less disruptive, and allows serious editors a chance to get their work done. These judgments were handed down in Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan_2, a case that I found to be particularly poignant. What we have here is a total mess- a complete lack of civility, posturing bordering on insanity, rabid nationalism, he said she said, and yet it happened not ONCE but TWICE. That to me turns people off to Wikipedia. These disruptive people need to be put on notice in an effective manner- warnings and watches just are not working- a fine example."
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I'm very diplomatic, a thorough researcher, a perfectionist when it comes to my work, affable, dependable, and most of all free to do my job actively.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | Snowspinner |
| First edit date: | April 18, 2004 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since July 2004 Arbitration Committee clerk (inactive) |
| Global Rights/Positions: | OTRS representative |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
As it stands, I would like to be an arbitrator fairly actively.
I tend to think that I am, by this point, a known quantity. I've been an administrator for something resembling three years now, was one of the first arbcom clerks, am an OTRS volunteer, helped author a number of policy pages and processes, am an active participant on wikien-l, etc. If elected to arbcom, I would, I imagine, change virtually nothing. The arbcom generally makes sound decisions, and I have no desire to radically reshape the process.
In response to the inevitable question of how I would find the time to be an arbitrator, I would intend to scale back my OTRS involvement in favor of arbitration, and would probably resign after one year to prevent burnout.
There is also, finally, the obvious issue that I've left Wikipedia. But it's not unreasonable to ask, why would I support a candidate who's left Wikipedia? Obviously, if elected, I'd ask brion for a password reset and come back. But that's clearly not the only issue. I left Wikipedia because I was frustrated at the mechanisms for policy formation. In the article space the anarchic and free-for-all nature of our editing is counterbalanced by clear principles that guide our editing. No counterbalance exists in the policy space. This has led to the ludicrous situation whereby we've had an easier time sorting out articles on the Middle East than we have had sorting out notability guidelines for webcomics.
It is no secret that the arbitration committee assumes de facto roles beyond those on WP:RFAr, becoming among the people that Jimbo and others consult for advice on matters. If elected, I would seek to use those additional roles to encourage both Jimbo and the community to find a way to reform policy formation - one that retains the benefits of the anarchic, free-for-all editing, but that is also more accountable, more controlled, and more capable of looking at the project in a programmatic way instead of a way based on solving individual problems and applying, often blindly, those solutions in a broader way.
Let me note, I consider this encouragement SEPARATE from the business of ruling on individual cases. WP:RFAr is not an instrument of policy formation, and I promise that I would not use it as one. Arbitration cases are decided according to current Wikipedia policy. But arbitration is also a social role. I believe I would be a fair, capable, active, and effective arbitrator. I also believe that I would use the larger position for good.
Phil Sandifer did not respond to questions before withdrawing his nomination.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | May 1, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since November 2005 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
On 2005-05-01, I took advantage of a public holiday to read the Wikipedia tutorial, and started editing. At the end of October 2005, I took advantage of a week's holiday to read up on Wikipedia policies and answer the Community's questions, and I was granted admin status on 2005-11-06. Since then, Wikipedia has become much larger and much more complicated...
With more users, more admins and many more policies, it is understandable that there are more differences of opinion as to how those policies should be implemented. It is the role of the Arbitration Committee to provide concrete solutions for concrete problems which arise from these differences of opinion. It does not "legislate", or make policy itself—that role is reserved for the Community or, in some cases, the Board. It's role is to provide a forum, and the services of respected members of the Community, to decide that one interpretation gives better results than another. This role is valuable: it allows us to move on from our disputes and return to the important business of creating a free encyclopedia.
The Arbitration Committee can only operate with the confidence of the Community. It is not fifteen arbitrators (or thirty, or however many) who enforce the remedies: it is the Community as a whole. Arbitrators present or prospective should remember this in their actions.
Many criticisms of the Arbitration Committee are not the subjet of these elections. No candidate can promise faster case resolution, nor more arbitrators, nor shorter term lengths for those arbitrators: these are questions for the Community as a whole to address. Myself, I can only promise to respond to disputes which are brought before the Committee with an analysis of the evidence, and of Wikipedia policies and principles, leavened with a dose of common sense.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I have been an administrator since 2005-11-06.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
- Pedophilia userbox case: A very minor role
- Depleted uranium case: I had offered to mediate in a dispute (the participants requested a scientifically-qualified mediator), but the mediation broke down over the attitude of one of the parties. That party is now banned from wikipedia.
- Catalonia case: For several months, I had been the only admin looking over articles about Catalonia and the Valencian Community, in which there was a certain amount of PoV-pushing from both nationalists and anti-nationalists. Eventually, after proposing mediation, I took everyone to arbitration.
- Sadi Carnot case: The original block of Sadi Carnot was hasty and unnecessary, so I reverted to allow discussion to take place on the basis of the status quo ante. The case also raised questions as to the ambiguity of banning policy.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I decided to run at the last minute, although it neatly coincided with my two years of adminship. I have been fairly critical of the current Committee in a variety of contexts. I think that sterile criticism is unproductive, and so I felt a certain moral responsability to propose an alternative.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I can't find any case from the last year which would make me say "ArbCom did really well on that one". On the other hand, decisions have for the most part been accepted, if grudgingly—there has been no open rebellion—and so I can't say that it has acted catastrophically either.
- On the positive side, this Committee has tried to find solutions for disputes whose solution really lies elsewhere in the Community: I am thinking particularly of the various nationalism disputes, where the Committee has tried a wide variety of remedies, with variable success. On the negative side, this Committee has tended towards a philosophy of "do the least which is necessary to get rid of the case": this had led to some strange and contradictory decisions over the last twelve months, which have rarely been satisfactorily explained.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
Most users will not vote for me. Most users couldn't care less about the elections to the Arbitration Committee. We have around 1 million distinct IP addresses which edit English Wikipedia each month, only a very small proportion of the users which those IPs represent will vote in these elections. If I am elected, I shall do my best to ensure that Wikipedia remains (or, in some unfortunate cases, becomes) a place where individuals can use their personal knowledge and skills to improve our encyclopedia.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | December 17, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since June 2006 |
| Global Rights/Positions: | OTRS representative |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
Hello everyone; thank you for taking the time to read my statement. For those of you who don't know me, I've been editing here since December 2005, and an admin since June 2006 (though I recently took a four month break until a couple of weeks ago). Like many others, I assist in OTRS. I am also semi-active in Wikinews, among other projects.
There are two problems with ArbCom that certain people have pointed out to me over my tenure. First, the large number of cases. Certainly, this is something that is unlikely to be remedied, as the community is large, and disagreements occur. Second, there is an issue with arbitrators not being as active as people wished. It would be disrespectful for me to present my candidacy to you without promising my continuous activity, should I be elected to the committee. If nothing else, my timely responses to any questions you might have should prove this.
No one likes coming to ArbCom. I've never met anyone who's said it's an enjoyable experience. People who make it to ArbCom have tried everything to resolve the situation, and are tired enough as it is. It is a difficult process for any and all Wikipedians involved. I want you to know that I am here to help you reach an agreement, not to spank you. I would work closely with all involved, through whatever methods, and make an attempt to come to an agreement. I want to help construct a principle or principles that make people walk away with a better sense of understanding, and to help construct a fair remedy or remedies that make people walk away with a sense of satisfaction.
I have had times when dispute resolution has called, not just as an administrator or through OTRS but also as a brief member for the now-defunct AMA. I have witnessed many-an arbitration case and know what the community wants and doesn't want. If nothing else, take this away from my statement; this encyclopedia is community driven. While ArbCom has to decide some things for themselves, if elected, I will be here to listen to you, work with you, and assist you, until you walk away satisfied. Some things we must decide on our own, but at the same time, I can not, and will not, ignore the community's opinion. I am here for you.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Administrator and OTRS.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
While I've never on a personal level, I have witnessed many a controversial arbitration case, and the community response to the outcome, which as you might imagine was generally negative. Additionally, I've offered my "two cents" to cases in which I feel would benefit from it.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
Like others, I would like to see cases resolved in a more timely manner. Additionally, I would like to see more arbitrator involvement in all cases, from start to finish, on all pages. Currently we don't have enough of that right now. Simply put, I would like to see a more active, and involved, arbitrator on the committee.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Without mentioning any specific cases I will say there have been cases handled well, and others handled poorly. Most of the other candidates hit the nail on the head with the cases they bring up. Some cases that come to ArbCom are messy to say the least, and trying to please everyone on the community is like trying to bring two million articles up to FA status- it simply cannot be done.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
It's up for the community to decide. My assertions are available on my candidacy page and my questions page. My experience and qualifications will translate into an excellent arbitrator. If nothing else, there's only one question you need to ask yourself, "Do I trust Pilotguy to be on the arbitration committee?"
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | Ryanpostlethwaite |
| First edit date: | October 28, 2006 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since March 2007 Mediator |
| Global Rights/Positions: | OTRS representative |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
For all those who don't know me, I'm Ryan. I've been a member here since October 2006 and an administrator since March 2007. For me, arbitration is an unfortunate process - as a community, we should be able to sort all of our problems ourselves. Normal dispute resolution channels should fix all problems we have without anyone having to make rulings. Currently however, this isn't the case and the committee has to step in when all other methods have failed.
I would see myself as a community arbitrator, I think I'm quite in touch with how we operate and I actually prefer to try and sort issues out before they reach the levels of arbitration. Taking things out of the community's hands is something I couldn't support if at all possible. If I was part of the committee I would like to see the arbitrators take a more active role within the community, appearing on noticeboards in an attempt to avoid arbitration, but I'm not naive and do understand that sometimes a case is inevitable, even if it's simply to hash out the community's core values. As an arbitrator, I would examine all requests that were made, and wherever possible, attempt to make suggestions as to how the community could handle the dispute - if that wasn't possible, then I'd accept the case.
I have experience with arbitration, I've proposed a number of principles, findings of fact and remedies that have been adapted by the arbitrators in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Betacommand, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I also proposed the dismissal of the PalestineRemembered case which the arbitrators adapted.
Finally, I believe it's important that an arbitrator must put the community's underlying principles into their mind when studying a case. Whatever their personal opinion, it should be put aside and they should look for a solution that would benefit the project - I feel I am a good candidate to do this.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
Well, I've been a member of wikipedia since October 2006, I became an administrator in March 2007, I'm currently a member of the mediation committee and I'm also an OTRS volunteer.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I've never been a named party in an arbitration case, but I've helped in a number of the workshop pages for cases which I'm not involved in. For the Betacommand case, I submitted evidence about innappropriate username blocks and I've also submitted principles, findings of fact and remedies which the current arbitrators have used in their final decision for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Miskin and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Badlydrawnjeff. I also proposed the dismissal of the PalestineRemembered case which the arbitrators adapted.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I guess the reason why I want to be on the arbitration committee is because I feel I can make a difference. I've enjoyed every minute I've been here and want to give even more to the project. I particularly enjoy taking part in dispute resolution procedures, and I think I act in a neutral manner with all parties involved. At all times I try to be firm, but fair and offer ways to solve disputes without having to move to more severe dispute resolution measures.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
Generally speaking, I think the committee have made the right decisions in most of the cases that they have worked on. I'd like to draw attention in particular to Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Jeffrey_O._Gustafson. By the end of the case, there were a lot of people calling for Jeffrey_O._Gustafson to be desysopped, but the committee instead used their judgement and only suspended his adminship for 30 days. Jeffrey recognises that this short suspension has made him see things in a different light and he has become much better at communication since. I was a little disappointed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Armenia-Azerbaijan 2 - there's been a lot of disruption on these pages coming in multiple forms, but the scope of the decision only allows sanctions to be placed against editors that edit war with incivility. I don't believe it fully recognises that the edit warring on these pages itself is extremely serious and given the previous case didn't solve the dispute, a harsher line should probably have been taken by the committee.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I think I'm trusted, accessible and have the knowledge and experience in dispute resolution to handle arbitration committee cases well. I also believe that I'm extremely open to discussing concerns which I believe is essential for the committee to remain in touch with the community. I try and be firm but fair in all disputes I mediate or get involved in, which is the way in which any arbitrator should act.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | October 6, 2005 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since March 2006 "Inactive" mediation cabal member |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
I am a Wikipedian since 2005 and an admin since March 2006. I'll be the first to admit that I haven't done a huge amount of work developing articles (although I initiated and made a lot of contributions in Category:Iarnród Éireann stations.
I've been principally involved in one arbitration case (Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude).
I didn't have much editing or time to do so earlier this year but now I am around more or less daily and believe I would make a good arbitrator. I have worked at the Mediation Cabal and regularly contribute to and clear deletion discussions and the New Pages queue.
I know there are plenty of suitable candidates here but I hope you will consider me as one of your selections.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I am currently an administrator and a fairly inactive caballist.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I was a complainant in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Monicasdude, and have made minor contributions to others.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I think I could do a good job as an arbitrator, as I am quite active, experienced in resolving problems and difficulties, and I want to help Wikipedia grow.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I thought that Allegations of Apartheid was left run on for too long before being dismissed, causing general annoyance between the parties to expand unnecessarily. I thought the Daniel Brandt wheel war case was a good example of clearing up matters in good time. Other than that I think the cases have been dealt with decently.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I think users should make their own decisions and if they think that I will be a help to the Arbitration Committee, they should consider voting for me.
| Candidate profile | |
|---|---|
| Other usernames: | N/A |
| First edit date: | March 8, 2006 |
| Local Rights/Positions: | Adminship since January 2007 Mediation cabal member |
| Global Rights/Positions: | None |
| Questions? | here |
| Vote: | here |
Candidacy statement:
If there is one place where I feel I can help Wikipedia, it would be in ArbCom. I’ve been around since March 2006, an administrator since January 2007, and I’ve certainly viewed enough disputes, especially the impact such disputes have on the community at large, where I understand what a responsibility ArbCom would be.
I do have some experience with dispute resolution, doing some work providing third opinions and participating occasionally at WP:MEDCAB. I’ve definitely browsed around ArbCom in the past few months, so I understand that it is not only a huge responsibility, but something where you have to know what you’re doing, and something where you have to handle criticism. Of course, you can’t let criticism, or anything for that matter, sway your decision. We are voted in by the community in hopes that we handle the largest of disputes in a way that ultimately abides by the core principles of Wikipedia and improves Wikipedia as a whole.
One thing I can guarantee is that if I am elected, I will be an active member. We’re elected to be the decision makers of the final step of dispute resolution, and that’s what we need to be. If something has went through dispute resolution with no consensus, and it is a matter which ArbCom has generally accepted in the past, then of course we need to do our job, and determine the proper course of action that will most benefit this encyclopedia. I trust that I can uphold what I believe can be done in this statement, and I believe I can be a good arbitrator.
What positions do you hold (adminship, mediation, etc.)?
I've been an admin since January '07, and I've been on medcab for a few months as well.
Have you been involved in any arbitration cases? In what capacity?
I haven't been a party in any, but I' have done some evidence providing and pre-acceptance statements, the former mainly being for the Certified.Gangsta case and the subsequent review.
Why are you running for the Arbitration Committee?
I'm running so that I can serve Wikipedia somewhere where I can have a strong impact on the community, and where I make a difference.
In the past year, are there any cases that you think the Arbitration Committee handled exceptionally well? Any you think they handled poorly?
I'm iffy about how Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Allegations of apartheid was handled. Whether or not there was an issue, letting it sit there for three months and deciding the community was handling it just does not sit right with me. Generally, most of the cases are either resolved well or are resolved moderately, which is eventually fixed.
Why do you think users should vote for you?
I'll actually do my job; they're won't be cases stuck in voting or motions for a month with be looking through them. I'm also very impartial.